Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />Planning Commission <br />Planning Case No. SP-001-96: Telecommunications Ordinance <br />December I2, I996 <br />Page 2 <br />Accessory �uildi�gs: Also in 5eciion 1126.03, Subd. 2, the requirement for CLTPs for accessory <br />buildings in the PF and CRP districts was deleted. In a subseqtaent section of the ordinance, text <br />was added that amends the PF and CRP districts to ailow accessory equipment structures only <br />when associated with a CWTS tower and/or antenna as a permitted accessory use. Also <br />regarding accessory equipment struciures, te�rt was added to the co�-locatian requirements section <br />that addresses how new buildings would be treated in relation to existing buildings. <br />Laradsccaping �.Screenin�: Added to the ordinance is a seciion that makes explicit the <br />Iandscapin� and screening requirements. Basically, a tree-screen of evergreens and omamental <br />deciduous trees is required to be planted around the fence so �hat at Ieast 50% of the accessory <br />str�ucfure and/or iower base is screened from view. Because some sites may not need landscaping <br />either because existing foliage is su�cient ar because ihe site might be in ihe middle of an <br />industrial site parking lot, the screenir�g and landscaping requirement can be waived. <br />1`'irocedural �equirements. The other major change to the ordinance from its previous version is <br />the additior� of a list of submittal requirements for CUPs, simitar ta what had been listed under <br />buitding pernut requirements. Those requirements were moved under the CUP heading because <br />ihe informatior� would be needed in order to approve a CUP. If no CtJP is required, then the <br />same ir�formation wouid be required to be submitted with the buiiding permit application. Also in <br />the procedural section, a cIarification was made to the proof of insurance requirement and an ``; <br />abandoned tower ctause was added. <br />Ca-location: We have removed the requirement for a"letter of intent" which would have <br />required all new towers to ailow �or co-location. This change was primarily made due to Iegal <br />considerations. The provision would not be workable anyway, because it was the Planning <br />Commission's desire that an applicant have a signed leased agreement, or other such dacumen�, <br />%r the second user before they received the height bonus for co-location. If the applicant had a <br />lease in hand, a letter of intent is not necessary. <br />The oiher changes are minor and can be addressed during the Planning Commission meeting on <br />December 18, 1996, if the Commissioners have any questions. <br />N:IDATAIUSERSI.TIIvviE1SHAFZEITO WERMEM.PC 3 <br />,' �� <br />